2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's decision of "the date of disposition" in the list of rejection of corporate tax for the business year of 2010 listed in the separate sheet of rejection of corporate tax for the business year of 2010 listed in the corresponding date, "the date of disposition" in the list of rejection of corporate tax for the business year of 2010 listed in the separate sheet of rejection of corporate tax for the business year of 201, "the date of disposition" as stated in the separate sheet of rejection of correction of corporate tax for the business year of 2011, and "the date of disposition" in the list of rejection of corporate tax for the business year of 2012 stated in the separate sheet of rejection of correction of corporate tax for the business year of 2012 as stated in the corresponding

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' argument in the first instance court in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Dividends of Section 5(6) shall be regarded as “distributions”.

○ The following shall be added under Part 5 9 of the fifth page:

D. On September 1, 2015, the Korea Exchange Bank merged Han Bank on September 1, 2015, and changed its trade name to Han Bank on the same day (hereinafter “Plaintiff Han Bank”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff Han Bank”).

[1] Korea Asset Management Corporation............. under the 6th and 9th of the 6th, Korea Asset Management Corporation......

○ Heading 6 to 12 below the seventh table are as follows:

3) Article 2(5) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act (No. 5371, Aug. 22, 1997) provides that the remaining property of the Fund shall be returned to a financial institution that contributed the Fund after the end of the operation period of the Fund. However, there was a ground for returning the remaining property of the Fund even before the end of the operation period pursuant to the proviso of Article 2(5) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 8698, Dec. 21, 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the “Annex to the former Asset Management Corporation Act”).

Pursuant to the revised supplementary provision, the Fund paid the instant shares to the Plaintiffs from 2010 to 2012, which was before the end of the operating period, and at the time, the Asset Corporation Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Committee") decided not to pay any separate interest at the time of repayment of the Fund.

○ The Fund in Part 20 of the 8th page shall be regarded as “the Fund”.

The term "non-performing Liquidation Fund Bonds" in the 2nd and 5th of the 9th page shall be each "Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund Bonds".

○ In Part 8 of Part 9, “Article 40(1)” shall be deleted.

○ Article 41(2) and (13) of the Asset Management Corporation Act shall be amended by inserting "Article 41(2) and (3) of the Act."

○ 9.16 The following shall be added:

In addition, funds subject to the National Finance Act, such as the funds in this case, should be managed and operated in accordance with the purpose of the establishment of the fund and the public interest (Article 62 of the National Finance Act), and the government should submit the fund operation plan to the National Assembly by 120 days before the fiscal year begins (Article 66 through 68 of the same Act).

Each "committee" of the 18 and 19 pages 9 shall be deemed to be the "Management Committee", and each "written" of the 19th shall be deemed to be "written".

○ The 10th page "1.9" in the first place shall be deemed to be "1.19", and the 3th page shall be deemed to be "paragraph 3", respectively.

○ The 10th page 4 of the 10th page "the Fund of this case" is "the purpose of the Fund of this case".

○ 11 Doz. 14 to 17 are as follows.

○ Article 29(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9898, Dec. 31, 2009); Article 56(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “a fund established under the Act and subordinate statutes as an organization corresponding to a non-profit domestic corporation that can appropriate reserve funds for its proper purpose business as deductible expenses.”

○ The 11th page 18 to 21 shall be as follows:

Article 2(1)8(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17826, Dec. 30, 2002; Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008) specifies the business related to the acquisition and liquidation of non-performing loans through the Fund as an item excluded from the profit-making business of a non-profit corporation.

The second part of the 12th part "Enforcement Decree of the same Act" is "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998)".

The "Assets Corporation (including the funds of this case)" in Part 12 of the third page shall be deemed to be "Korea Assets Management Corporation (limited to the Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund)".

○ The following shall be added at least 12 pages 13:

3) The nature of the shares of this case

In light of the provisions of the former Asset Management Corporation Act and the interpretation thereof, it is reasonable to view that the provision that the residual property of the Fund shall be returned to the relevant institution after the expiration of the period of operation of the Fund under Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Asset Management Corporation Act in accordance with the standards of disposal taking into account the contribution ratio, etc. is rather than the return of profits to investors. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise that the instant shares are earnings from the investment of the financial institution is not reasonable in this respect.

A) Article 39(1) of the former Asset Management Corporation Act provides for an “contribution of a financial institution” as one of the financial resources to create the instant fund. However, in light of the fact that Article 9 of the same Act provides that the capital of the Asset Management Corporation is comprised of investments by financial institutions and the Government, and that the meaning of the contribution refers to an increase in property losses and losses by paying money or bearing obligations according to one’s own intent.” In addition, the said financial institution’s contribution means a payment of money and valuables, and it does not mean an investment in which the financial institution intends to make profits.

B) Article 39(1) of the former Asset Management Corporation Act provides for “1. Financial resources from the creation of the Fund of this case, funds transferred from the Corporation, 2.3. Funds created by the issuance of Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund Bonds, 4. Loans from the Bank of Korea, 5. Loans from persons other than the Bank of Korea, 6. Operational earnings and other revenues.” This is distinguishable from contributions, transferred funds, funds from the creation of bonds, borrowed funds, borrowed funds, profits, and other revenues. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the members of the Fund, which are the premise for return of profits from the investment, are presented.

C) As long as financial institutions, including the Plaintiffs, do not have invested in the Fund, it is deemed that the former Asset Management Corporation Act, Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act, had the relevant institution return residual property after the expiration of the period of operation of the Fund in accordance with the guidelines for disposal taking into account the contribution ratio, etc., it is a policy provision stipulating the method of disposal of residual property after the expiration of the period of operation, and it cannot be deemed that the financial institutions, including the Plaintiffs, etc. are entitled

D) Furthermore, the Fund is established for the efficient liquidation of non-performing loans, etc. owned by financial institutions, and is used for the liquidation business of non-performing loans, etc., so it does not directly aim at generating profits (Articles 38 and 41 of the former Asset Management Corporation Act).

4) The time when the amount distributed was reverted to gross income

(A) Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The year in which earnings and losses of a domestic corporation accrue shall be the business year which includes the date on which the earnings and losses are determined.” It shall be deemed that the income has been realized if the right which is the cause of such income has not been actually generated, and the so-called principle of confirmation of right is adopted for the calculation of taxable income. Such right settlement principle shall be deemed as the date when the right which is the cause of income has been realized and the income has been finally determined, and shall be deemed as having accrued when the income is not the time when the income has been realized, and shall be deemed as the principle that the amount of the remaining assets of the Fund shall be imposed in advance on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, the concept of “determined” in the above right settlement principle shall not be defined as a general principle that does not include any exception to the time when the assets are acquired and disposed of, and shall not be determined within a certain period of time when the assets are disposed of within 19 months after the end of the business year.

C) In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 11, the Government shall inspect the assets and liabilities of the Fund as of the end of June 2006 and the end of December 2007; on September 26, 2008, the 81.4 billion won was decided by the 8081.4 billion won at the 8th 2008 Operational Plan of Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund (hereinafter “Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund”) to newly establish the items to be refunded to financial institutions in the expenditure plan; thereafter, the National Assembly approved the payment of the above amount to be refunded to financial institutions; accordingly, on December 29, 2008, the remaining assets were first returned to financial institutions including the plaintiffs; on March 6, 2009, the 2009 Operational Plan for Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund (hereinafter “Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund”) was first resolved to revise the Operational Plan for Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund (hereinafter “Non-Performing Fund”) to the Plaintiffs.

D) Therefore, the time when the plaintiffs can be deemed to have secured the taxpayer's money by enabling the management and control of the shares of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the business year to which the shares of this case accrue is 2010 or 2012. In this regard, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

○ The 12th page 16 of the 12th page is "Fair Trade Act" as "Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act".

○ “(see Articles 8, 8-2, and 8-3)” is added following the 12th anniversary of the 19th Permissible Date.

○ The 13th page "specified rate" in the 13th page is higher than the "specified rate".

○ by striking 13, 18 to 14, the first page shall be deleted.

○ Chapter 14 (B) is also called “(A)”.

○ The 14th page "n" is regarded as "nick".

○ Heading 10 to 15 of the 14th page are as follows:

B) In addition, Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act may apply to cases where a domestic corporation that is not a non-profit domestic corporation has received dividend income from a domestic corporation that is not a non-profit domestic corporation.

Dividend amount refers to the amount of dividend or surplus distribution and the amount of dividend or distribution under Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act (see Article 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act), and Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act is not applicable to the amount of dividend or surplus distribution paid by the Fund to the Plaintiffs, a non-profit corporation, as well as the amount of dividend or surplus distribution in this case, since the amount of dividend in this case was paid before the end of the operating period of the Fund, it cannot be deemed as a distribution of residual property due to dissolution of the Fund in this case, and thus it cannot be deemed as a dividend or distribution pursuant to Articles 18-2(1) and 16(1)4 of the Corporate Tax Act

C) The purpose of Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act is to prevent double taxation on a single income by imposing a tax on the income already imposed at the stage of the relevant domestic corporation in cases where a domestic corporation received dividend income from another domestic corporation invested. However, the instant fund is merely a corporate tax recognized as a corporation pursuant to the relevant provisions, and it cannot be viewed as the advance payment of the tax to be paid by the Plaintiff as the tax paid for a separate reason by the Plaintiff. Thus, the taxation on the instant dividend cannot be deemed as a taxation on the same income as the tax already paid by the Fund, and cannot be deemed as a double taxation.

○ 23 Doz. 23 Doz. are as follows.

A Addenda No. 5371, 5371, and 22, 197

Article 2 (Operation Period, etc. of Fund)

(1) The financial resources of the Fund under Article 39, the non-performing loans under Article 41 (2) 1, and the acquisition of assets for self-help plan as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may be conducted only for five years after the enforcement date of this Act.

(2) The takeover under Article 26 (1) 1 shall be executed with the financial resources of the Fund during the period under paragraph (1).

(3) After the operation period of the Fund referred to in paragraph (1) has expired, the repayment of principal and interest of bonds and borrowings and disposal of acquired assets, etc., residual property of the Fund shall be returned to the relevant institution according to the disposal standards taking into account the contribution ratio, etc. referred to in Article 39 (1) 1 and

Addenda No. 5371, Aug. 22, 1997 (amended by Act No. 8140, Dec. 30, 2006 and Act No. 8698, Dec. 21, 2007)

Article 2 (Operation Period, etc. of Fund)

(1) The raising of financial resources of the Fund pursuant to the provisions of Article 39 (1) 2, 3, 3-2, and 4 through 6 may be made not later than November 22, 2007 only in cases where it is necessary to repay non-performing bonds issued by financial institutions in order to dispose of such non-performing bonds, and the raising of financial resources pursuant to the provisions of Article 39 (1) 7 may be made from November 23, 2002 to the end of the period of operation of the Fund pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4). < Amended by Act No. 8146, Dec. 30, 200

② 제41조 제2항 제1호의 규정에 따른 부실채권 및 대통령령이 정하는 자구계획대상자산의 인수는 이 법 시행일부터 2002년 11월 22일까지 이를 할 수 있다. <신설 2006.12.30>

(3) The takeover under Article 26 (1) 1 shall be made out of the financial resources of the Fund for the period under paragraph (2). < Amended by Act No. 8146, Dec. 30, 2006>

(4) The Fund may be operated by November 22, 2012.

(5) The Fund shall complete the repayment of principal and interest of bonds and borrowings and the disposal of acquired assets, etc. by the date on which the operation period under paragraph (4) expires, and shall refund its residual assets to the contributor, etc. according to the operation standards in consideration of the contribution ratio, etc. under Article 39 (1) 1 (referring to the one prior to deletion under the amended Framework Act on the Management of Charges (Act No. 7058) through 3 and 3-2 within three months after the expiration of the operation period: Provided, That where it is obvious that the Minister of Finance and Economy has residual assets at the end of the operation period as a result of an actual inspection of the assets and liabilities of the Fund under Article 7 (1) of the Public Capital Redemption Fund Act, and it is possible to estimate such amount, part of the estimated residual assets may be refunded before the expiration of the operation period (referring to the presumed residual assets). < Amended by Act No

(6) Detailed criteria, time, procedures, methods, etc. for the disposal of the Fund pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (5) and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion in the trial

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

If the provision on exclusion of dividend income from taxable income cannot be applied to the distribution of this case, the distribution of this case constitutes "value of assets received without compensation" under Article 18 subparagraph 8 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 31, 2010) and thus, the distribution of this case should be appropriated for losses carried forward after the deadline for deduction.

B. Determination

(i) the regulations and purport of the loss brought forward;

Article 18 subparag. 8 of the Corporate Tax Act and Articles 10(2) and 18(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22220, Jun. 28, 2010) provide that the amount appropriated to compensate for losses carried forward among the gains accruing from the receipt of assets shall not be included in gross income in calculating the income amount for each business year, and the losses carried forward appropriated for the gains accruing from the receipt of assets, etc. shall be deemed as deductible in calculating the tax base for each business year, and the losses carried forward appropriated for the gains from the receipt of assets, etc. shall be deemed as deductible in calculating the tax base for each business year. This means that the losses carried forward appropriated for the gains from the receipt of assets, etc. shall be deemed as having been deducted in calculating the tax base for each business year, which is the taxpayer corporation, with the purport that the gains from the receipt of assets can no longer be seen as having been deducted in calculating the income amount for each business year.

2) Determination

Considering the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the facts acknowledged as above, the shares of this case cannot be deemed as "value of assets received free of charge" and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion about the appropriation of additional losses carried forward in the trial is without merit.

A) Under the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any justifiable reason. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004) to strictly interpret the aforementioned provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004). In light of its purport, “value of assets received free of charge” refers to the value of assets received without any consideration or compensation for improving the financial structure of the corporation.

B) The Plaintiffs received the instant shares from the Fund. Article 2(5) of the Addenda of the former Asset Management Corporation Act amended by Act No. 8698, Dec. 21, 2007; and Article 2(5) of the Addenda of the former Asset Management Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 8698, Dec. 21, 2007) provides that where the Minister of Finance and Economy is certain to have residual assets at the end of the management period and can estimate the amount, part of the estimated residual assets may be returned even before the end of the management period. The foregoing Addenda provision provides for the method of disposal of residual assets of the Fund, and does not provide for the purport that the Fund may donate assets to the Plaintiffs for the improvement of the financial structure

C) Article 2(5) of the Addenda provides that the Fund shall be returned to the person who has made a contribution according to the "standards for disposal taking into account the contribution ratio, etc." The distribution of this case is not paid without any consideration or compensation, but paid to the person who has made a contribution, etc. under the former Asset Management Corporation Act, such as the plaintiffs.

D) The Plaintiffs asserts that the instant shares may only be deemed as assets gratuitously received if they are not dividends for investors. However, the concept of mutual conflict cannot be deemed as the conflicting concepts, and there may be cases where the shares do not fall under assets received at the same time without paying dividends. Therefore, it is difficult to accept such logic. The instant shares also constitute the distribution of residual assets for contributors pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act, not the return of profits to investors. It is reasonable to view that the instant shares also constitute the distribution of residual assets for the contributors under Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act, rather than the return of profits to investors, and it is difficult to view the aforementioned shares of residual assets for the contributors as the same as the donation received without paying any consideration or compensation.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.